They know exactly what they're doing.

prop him up and strengthen support for his agenda. But his behavior and his agenda have gotten to the point where they are so ridiculous, this tactic just makes them look as demented as he is.

I can only hope many more are seeing this than did when he was elected. And re-elected.

Who see things through orange-colored eyeglasses.

And the Trump stories have relegated to the third or fourth story of the night. It’s never the lead. Infuriating.

If the media moves his drivel to page 13, it takes the spotlight off of him and makes room for stories that focus on what a total disaster his administration really is.

in that his consuming power and influence is affecting so many things in our lives. How do you inform people of these drastic consequences without crediting them to the ubiquitous toddler in chief?.

on the consequences of Trump's actions without putting the spotlight directly on him. We don't need to hear his nonstop nonsense. We just have to see the disaster for what it is and work toward mitigating the damage now, while espousing plans to check his insanity after the mid terms.

I for one am sick of seeing his ugly orange face.

I think the objection in the OP is that he is, objectively speaking, a compulsive liar that is given every benefit of the doubt that he does not deserve. Too often he's treated in press/media as if journalistic objectivism means complete ignorance, which it doesn't. In knowing that he's a liar, any coverage of his comments should begin by stating that fact somewhere. Instead his false statements are treated with kid gloves.

It's a habit as old as America for institutions to give all the passes to white men motivated by the preservation of white male supremacy. They are supremely vindictive. But when institutions bend to appease them they aren't being independent and they aren't serving people well.

Just my fifteen cents (inflation )

What news has EVER come out of that farce?

Tonight we correctly guessed tornadoes. Like how the answer on multiple answer tests is usually C, the top story on ABC is usually tornadoes.

First, the reasons. This is "investigative" or "enterprise" journalism. Mind you, this is not Watergate level investigative journalism, and it ain't going to win any Pulitzer prizes, but that is what it is. The administration makes a claim, the administration provides no evidence, they investigate and find that, actually, there is no real evidence, even though there is a minor revelation that was used as a pretext for an exaggerated bullshit claim.

Now why would they go through all this trouble to investigate a bullshit claim that would seem to be almost self evident? That nobody would believe in the first place? Not true. There are plenty of people who will and do believe the bullshit. That is a fact that we are going to have to live with, and are going to have to work against. An article like this erodes and counter-acts this blind faith. Now, does it suddenly cause a revelation on the part of the true believers? Do they slap their forehead and say "My God, I have been deceived?" Do they even read the NYT? No, but informational osmosis propagates it and it erodes blind faith, especially around the edges - those who are skeptical but not yet never Trumpers. And its neutral point of view helps to undermine the allegation that anti-Trumpers are victims of TDS.

So what about the headline itself? It does not scream "Trump Is Bullshitting You... Again." It is more neutral and "non partisan." Hey, the prez says this, and, sure, it is unlikely, but... let's take a look." This is the right approach. It telegraphs the exact opposite of partisanship rancher and any sort of "derangement syndrome." What it telegraphs is "epistemic virtue" - the ethical value of pursuing and adhering to the facts, the evidence, and the truth, wherever it might lead. This is obviously a stance that is at odds with and against the "Trumpian anti-ethos" of grandiose, self serving bullshit. It leads by example. And it will overcome.

If you are familiar with the skeptical community - those who are skeptical of and investigate "anomalous phenomenon," like claims of the supernatural, UFO, psychic abilities, etc. - you may be familiar with this stance. To many skeptics such claims are patently ridiculous, and laughable. However, the stance that is taken is that of epistemic virtue: Let's take a look and see. Let's investigate and find out. This stance conveys a certain amount of respect for the "claimant" and for the truth.

The proper stance in a journalistic enterprise is a certain amount of respect for the "claimant" - in this case, for those that might be inclined to believe based on blind faith - and a great deal of respect for the truth. The headline and the article display both.

NOW for the exception: As HL Mencken has said:

This is true! And it doesn't exactly comport with the skeptical stance of respect for those who are believers. This is the Andy Borowitz approach, and I approve of it heartily - because I am heartily laughing along with him! The Onion? I love it! Jonathan Swift? You bet!

The difference here is the field of discourse... Satire is a rhetorical device used in the advocacy of a truth, in an amusing and entertaining way, but not for the discovery of the facts that substantiate the truth. It has its value as a weapon, especially for those who are already outside of, or are becoming skeptical of, the blind faith community. But satire is simply not journalism. Journalism requires a different approach. Both have value, but they must both be used appropriately under the circumstances.

This is what Trump depends on. This is how he controls all the news all the time.

The biggest problem is the absolute ridiculousness of the things about which they are saying, "Let's investigate that." If he said, "I have nine noses," should their knee jerk reaction be, "Let's investigate that"?

The world actually IS round. Gravity actually DOES make things fall to the ground. Pool vandalizing leftist gangs DO NOT exist and Trump DID fuck up. It wastes everyone's time and adds credibility to the asinine to say, "Let's investigate that!"

As you say, this is probably aimed at the maga who will believe him no matter what, even when he does say, "Look at my face, I have nine noses." But should the New York Times, the paper of record, be saying, "Hmmm. Let's look at his face and count, because I think there's only one!" Doesn't that make them completely useless about news that does matter?

... than ignoring it entirely. And a newspaper is not (in the news section) going to go on about how inane he is without some sort of investigation. In fact, they are not going to be very overtly judgmental even with an investigation, as this article exemplifies.

As long as we are talking about journalistic standards for news reporting, I think that will just be the case. In the opinion section there is much more latitude for being judgmental and for making assumptions about the actual facts and motives. Maybe you would be more satisfied with the opinion section, or opinion oriented outlets.

Also MS-Now did the same thing. Nobody will stick their necks out and say that "HE DID IT." It's his fault, clearly and obviously. They don't want to deal with his wrath, his mean-tweets, his stupid nuisance lawsuits, etc.

So they dance around the truth....

(sigh) This is the country we're living in now, if we can call this "living."

They cannot move the needle no matter how editorial their headlines get. Newspapers don't have that power. Americans listen to Fox and Hate Radio.

MFer will still threaten to sue them over their downplaying headlines.

Does anyone on DU actually think for a New York second, that ANY MAGAot Trumphumper watches anything on ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.
They all have nothing on their TV's except FOX NEWS, 24/7/365 for over 20? years now........Oh, and of course RW Radio saturating the air waves across the entire, vastness of Rural America...........

And all these MAGAot voters either can't read at all, or won't read anything in print........

Rush Limbaugh is smiling and laughing hysterically from his grave.......

called it!

Billboards and highway overpasses signage cannot be ignored!

They are true state tv. It is mind control - very scary.

Fox News averages about 1.7 million viewers during the day. Primetime gets maybe 2.6 million viewers. For comparison, ABC News averages 7.8 to 8.6 million viewers. NBC averages between 5.5 & 7.8 million viewers. CBS News averages about 3.8 million viewers (down significantly from before Bari Weiss took over). There is almost nobody tuned into FoxNews 24 hours day. And a vast majority of Trump voters do not watch Fox News on any kind of consistent basis.

Talk radio is far more insidious and has significantly more regular listeners than the small numbers of people watching Fox News.

he is now blaming other people, innocent bystanders, trying to ruin their lives and he doesn't care whose lives he ruins, we all know that, but for the GOP to condone it makes the tragedy even bigger.

If I am not mistaken, these people are now forced to go to court for something they didn't do.

I agree with your analysis, wholeheartedly.

The Iranian Hostage Crises Day XX
Every single day. (That led to Koppel and Nightline)

2026: The Chump - Epstein file cover up, day 2,321.
The only for sure mention of this is on Jimmy Kimmel!

The question is, why do they make editorial decisions that favor Trump?

I don’t get it. I don’t know what’s in it for them. But what I do know is that these aren’t errors of judgement. They’re intentional decisions and they provide an unending supply of fig leaves to this administration.

CBS, same thing.